M4/3 need a 400mm or larger prime.

I like birding and have the 100-300mm but it still is not long enough and after around 250mm not as sharp as I would like. ( not bad ) just I want more.

Do you think the OLY and Panny people read these threads?

I will buy the 150mm f2.8 if it ever comes out but give us a 400mmm f4 and a good quality TC 1.4
I don't want to go with bigger gear because walking for miles birding with 20lbs + worth of gear takes the fun out of it.

A 400 would be great, but a 500 or 600 would be event better. And there's no need for it to be f/2.8--I need DOF and light weight more than I need speed. So, with a moderate maximum aperture and the smaller image circle, the lens could theoretically be a lot cheaper than it would be for APS or FF cameras.

But how much would it be and how many people are willing to pay for one?

Click to expand...

The ones who need it will pay for it, the ones who don't need it won't... Just like with every other camera system on the market. There's no difference. We have the same needs, the same users, and the same market.

A 400 would be great, but a 500 or 600 would be event better. And there's no need for it to be f/2.8--I need DOF and light weight more than I need speed. So, with a moderate maximum aperture and the smaller image circle, the lens could theoretically be a lot cheaper than it would be for APS or FF cameras.

Click to expand...

Image circle makes no difference for telephotos. Even the lack of a mirror doesn't help.

A 400/4 will be a large, heavy, expensive lens. As in well over 4 pounds. And for such a small volume item, easily $6-8k.

The ones who need it will pay for it, the ones who don't need it won't... Just like with every other camera system on the market. There's no difference. We have the same needs, the same users, and the same market.

Click to expand...

The people who will pay for that sort of lens are the same people who want first-class C-AF performance. Which completely rules out m4/3 for them in the first place.

Find a used 500 4.5 FD L. It's likely going to be one of your top choices for really good tele's on this system, their will be a learning curve for sure, but hey... it's a great performer considering it's price and construction, and quality at 1000mm equiv for ~$1500.

Image circle makes no difference for telephotos. Even the lack of a mirror doesn't help.

A 400/4 will be a large, heavy, expensive lens. As in well over 4 pounds. And for such a small volume item, easily $6-8k.

The people who will pay for that sort of lens are the same people who want first-class C-AF performance. Which completely rules out m4/3 for them in the first place.

Click to expand...

This reflects my thoughts. A 400 f/4 would be about the size of the current 4/3 300mm f/2.8, if you were to want decent performance. That's a lot of high-quality optical glass, and that's what makes it so very expensive. We won't even tap into the CDAF constraints for big-aperture long-glass before the cost starts to exceed the current 300 f/2.8.

I love my Canon fd 300mm F2.8, but it´s not a nice lens to lug around and bring on trips, so if oly or pany would make one it might be the first lens i would pre-order.
the lenses in it would not have to be at the same size so i think it could be quite alot cheaper then the canikons. (then a TC 1,6 or 2,0 would come in handy also)

So the equivalents on m4/3rds are: 400 f/5.6, 300 f/4, 250 f/4, and 200 f/2.8. All of these are easily doable with < 82mm lenses, which I am pretty sure is the absolute highest Panasonic is interested in going to and Olympus probably doesn't ever want to exceed 72mm. It would take a major change in philosophy to get either of them to make a 400 f/4.

The important thing is really not the aperture anyway, the important thing is the image quality it is built to achieve. You can make a 400 f/5.6 that is pretty good (like the Canon 400 f/5.6 for ~$1500), or you can make one that is fantastic and charge twice that amount or more. That is what I would like to see a very high quality 400 f/5.6 even if it costs $2.5k or more. Or even better, a 200-400 constant f/5.6 as long as it is built to high enough standards. The point being, ask for Pro quality birding lenses first, specific apertures and focal lengths second.

I know it might sound wrong saying this since this is a m4/3 forum but why not get a Nikon 1. I know a lot of birders who love this camera because it can AF{spot at least} with all of Nikkor's AF-S lenses including the teles. The smaller sensor means a larger crop factor which means even more magnification.

For instance a 200mm on the Nikon 1 translates to a 540mm{FF} or a 270mm{m4/3}. Put on a 300mm and it is like an 810mm{FF} or a 405mm{m4/3}. The Nikkor 300mm f4 AF-S is $1500. The zooms are far cheaper than that. You also have the option of Sigma and Tamron lenses which are even cheaper.

I would love to see a lens longer than 300mm and/or a faster 300mm for m4/3 but it will be at least a year before one shows up if ever. I have no hope of Panasonic making one, Olympus maybe. Sigma or Tamron might however. But no matter what they would be $2K or higher in price.

The smaller sensor means a larger crop factor which means even more magnification.

For instance a 200mm on the Nikon 1 translates to a 540mm{FF} or a 270mm{m4/3}. Put on a 300mm and it is like an 810mm{FF} or a 405mm{m4/3}. The Nikkor 300mm f4 AF-S is $1500. The zooms are far cheaper than that. You also have the option of Sigma and Tamron lenses which are even cheaper.

Click to expand...

Greater crop factor does not actually translate to greater reach (and, btw, it is reach, not magnification, because magnification means something else entirely in photography). Reach does not actually change with sensor size, only focal length actually affects reach. People just think it changes because what comes out of their camera appears to have been taken from closer to the subject. However, if you used the same lens on a larger format camera you could crop to the exact same framing. So all smaller sensors actually give you over larger sensors is pixel density, not an actual increase in reach. This is even more the case if the larger format camera has a zoom function to make framing easier.

That being said, thanks to these lenses being able to AF on the Nikon 1 series, the idea itself actually seems like a good one. The Nikon 300 f/4 + a V1 could be a pretty decent birding package and would cost less than 2k (and anyone serious about birding pretty much has to plan to spend 2k at minimum these days anyway).

Olympus seems absolutely dedicated to keeping their m4/3rds lenses as small as humanly possible. IIRC the largest filter thread size on any Olympus lens is 58mm, and the largest for Panasonic is 67mm, and that is only one lens. The rest are all under 58mm.

So far neither company has shown signs of having an interest in making a 70mm or wider front element lens for m4/3rds. So until that changes, and it would be a large change, I would not waste my time hoping for more than an 80mm front element lens from them, let alone a 100mm one.

Links in this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.